The US war in Iraq is officially over!!!

Today marks the day that the last U.S. convoy leaves Iraq, leaving a country that is learning to stand on its own two democratic feet. It has been a long nine years, and has cost Iraq and the U.S. dearly. I hope that Iraq becomes a beacon for the rest of the Arab world on what real political cohesiveness and positive outlooks for the future can bring about for a country, even one devastated by war. Below, a report from Aswat al-Iraq on the last U.S. convoy to leave Iraq and signal the end of a nine year conflict.


BAGHDAD / Aswat al-Iraq: The last US Army convoy has crossed Iraq's borders into Kuwait on Sunday at dawn, officially ending the withdrawal of the American Forces from Iraq.

The final withdrawal comes after 9 years of war and military interference, resulting in the deaths of 4,500 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis, Reuters News Agency reported.

"The last US convoy, including 100 American armored vehicles, carrying 500 soldiers, have crossed Iraq's southern desert during Saturday night, on the main highway leading to the Kuwaiti borders," Reuters added.

US Staff Sergeant Christian Schutlz said, prior to leaving Contingency Operating Base Adder, 300 km to the south of Baghdad, and heading for border, “It’s good to see this thing coming to a close. I was here when it started."

"I saw a lot of good changes, a lot of progress, and a lot of bad things too," he added.

It all started with one small country

I realise there are quite a few people who follow on here who will not have seen me post this elsewhere. Here is my article I wrote for the International Observatory on Stability and Conflict, and I'm thrilled with the result. Check out the OISC's website for further analysis on the evolving situation of the global protests. So happy to have collaborated with them.

Last spring, the western world watched with wonder and bewilderment the people once under colonialist submission rise to defend their right to self-determination. Concepts such as one man-one vote, direct suffrage, equality for all, redistribution of wealth and freedom of the press were defended amidst blood and sweat, the very same price western peoples paid for their freedom two centuries ago. More importantly, the western world watched as unarmed, young protesters without leaders made decades-long dictatorships fall, in Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, and more bloodily, in Libya. The once apathetic American youth received a massive electrical shock in 2008; placing all its hopes and dreams on the sole shoulders of President Obama, their activism is now focused against their own leader: corporate greed, corporate personhood, and corporate domination has to fall. The Occupy Wall Street movement has spread nationwide, is unarmed, without a leader, and is very much hoping to reclaim the American Dream. 2011 could be the year of worldwide successful revolutions; it could be the new Dawn of the People. But what are the consequences of such massive political overhaul? Is Occupy Wall Street the child of the Arab Spring, in a reverse clash of civilizations? Journalist Susan Richards-Benson, on the foreground of the new era, gives us a compelling analysis.

“One man, lighting himself on fire in protest of a continued reign of tyranny, through his actions lit a fire in the souls of people around the world”

The world today is trembling, and not just from the movements of its crust. People around the globe are unknowingly uniting together against one front: fighting the continued abuse of power that for so many years went ignored.

It all started with one small country. One man, lighting himself on fire in protest of a continued reign of tyranny, through his actions lit a fire in the souls of people around the world. What started in Tunisia quickly spread to Egypt. It wasn’t long before surrounding countries also began to feel the heat. The spirit of Revolution had been awakened.  But this time, people were not going to simply sit back quietly and accept the tirade of excuses presented by the powers that be. This time, the power of the people would triumph and their voices would be heard.

The Arab Spring sent shockwaves throughout the world. For many sitting in the comfort of their living rooms in the United States, there seemed little reason to be worried. These were countries far away with political policies that barely impacted their everyday lives. How could the United States possibly have anything to fear with the growing tides of revolution in the Middle East?

 

“Is it possible that people currently in New York really share the same grievances as the Egyptian youth staked out in Tahreer Square?”

The Occupy Wall Street movement serves as a reminder that revolutionary spirit is not limited to developing countries only. As more protesters flood the streets of New York, activists begin looking to protesters across the Atlantic for inspiration on how to best keep the momentum moving. If the revolution in Egypt proved anything, it was the power of social networking to inspire and unite. As with the Occupy Wall Street protests, media outlets initially ignored the growing tensions in both Egypt and Tunisia, leaving it to the protesters themselves to get the word out. Facebook and Twitter have proven to be monumental tools in coordinating protests, garnering support, updating on developments, and ultimately breaking through the blackout wall erected by both regimes and media outlets.

But how similar are the movements in reality? Is it possible that people currently in New York really share the same grievances as the Egyptian youth staked out in Tahreer square?

To answer this question, one must first examine what the root causes behind the protests really are. Are they simply the disgruntled and unemployed who have nothing better to do with their time? Or are they in fact the great majority of a population who have simply tired of being trodden on and suppressed by the ruling elite?

Egyptian society during the Mubarak era was highly striated; the difference between Egyptian and U.S. social hierarchies is that in Egypt, this societal structure is well known and documented. But now, due to global protests, more and more people in the U.S. are realizing that class warfare exists in their home country also. The fundamental difference between the two countries is that in Egypt, people came to accept this hierarchy as an absolute truth, whereas in the U.S. there is always hope that the “American dream” will become a reality if you work just that little bit harder, just that little bit longer.

The Egyptian revolutionary youth broke through this mentality. During the January Revolution, young and old, rich and poor, Muslims and Christians stood side by side united in their cause. Together, they toppled a regime that had kept them under lock and key for three decades. Together, through the power of the people they triumphed. Now however, Egypt is witnessing attempts to rip apart this social fabric that was so carefully woven during the Revolution. Egyptian media outlets are continuously dominated by stories of Muslims attacking Christian churches, of Christian business owners attacking their Muslim neighbors’ store front. It smacks of methods previously employed; methods which had successfully implanted in many minds of Egyptian citizens that they were not all equal and did not all deserve the same chances in life. It is an attempt to sabotage the undeniable solidarity that pushed Hosni Mubarak out of power to begin with.

Protesters in Wall Street should be watching carefully as these tactics are employed throughout Egypt. They too are facing similar tactics, with smear campaigns circulating the very social networks they used to get their message out in the first place. A picture is being painted of social activists who are merely attempting to stir up trouble, and true patriots should never question the ruling elite. It’s worked for centuries has it not? Why rock the boat now?

Tahrir Square, February 3

“They have learned a valuable lesson; one that should be translated to protesters throughout the rest of the world. In order for the power of the people to triumph, it must be united.”

To this day, many Egyptian protesters are still taking to the streets, despite the lacking media coverage to emphasize their cause. Despite attempts to stir up sectarian tensions amongst everyday citizens, Muslims and Christians together are presenting one voice, one united front: “We are the revolutionary youth. We are all Egyptians.” They have learned a valuable lesson; one that should be translated to protesters throughout the rest of the world. In order for the power of the people to triumph, it must be united. To allow attempts to divide individuals or groups, to plant the idea that one person is somehow more entitled than the next will only serve the very ruling elite people are rebelling against.

Now is the time for governments that were built for the people and by the people to listen to their citizens. To acknowledge their past mistakes. To accept that further dividing a country and its citizens will never succeed. If Egypt proved anything, it is that one voice alone cannot change anything, but a million voices united in a cause can give birth to a new country – to a new future.

As Alexander Solzhenitsyn once said “You only have power over people so long as you don’t take everything away from them. But when you’ve robbed a man of everything he’s no longer in your power – he’s free again.”

Was celebrating Bin Laden's death wrong, politically incorrect?

I was sent this by a close source who has requested anonymity. It certainly makes you wonder how "civilized" a people can be considered, when they revel in the death of one person. Regardless of who that person was, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

I am glad bin Laden is dead. The world is a vastly better, safer place with him no longer in it. There is certainly a sense of relief, but I don't take any more joy in his death than I would a rabid animal. It needed to be done and it got taken care of. Well done to Team 6!

That being said, when I saw the pictures of the kids out celebrating his death:









it immediately brought to mind these pictures that were taken in the aftermath of 9/11:

 

Enough said......but it will not be the

End of the Story.

The Professor's War

Brilliant commentary on the U.S. ongoing role in Libya.

The Professor's War

Obama is obsessed with handing over command in Libya

By Charles Krauthammer

President Obama is proud of how he put together the Libyan operation. A model of international cooperation. All the necessary paperwork. Arab League backing. A Security Council resolution. (Everything but a resolution from the Congress of the United States, a minor inconvenience for a citizen of the world.) It's war as designed by an Ivy League professor.

True, it took three weeks to put this together, during which time Moammar Gaddafi went from besieged, delusional (remember those youthful protesters on “hallucinogenic pills”) thug losing support by the hour — to resurgent tyrant who marshaled his forces, marched them to the gates of Benghazi and had the U.S. director of national intelligence predicting that “the regime will prevail.”

But what is military initiative and opportunity compared with paper?

Well, let’s see how that paper multilateralism is doing. The Arab League is already reversing itself, criticizing the use of force it had just authorized. Amr Moussa, secretary-general of the Arab League, is shocked — shocked! — to find that people are being killed by allied airstrikes. This reaction was dubbed mystifying by one commentator, apparently born yesterday and thus unaware that the Arab League has forever been a collection of cynical, warring, unreliable dictatorships of ever-shifting loyalties. A British soccer mob has more unity and moral purpose. Yet Obama deemed it a great diplomatic success that the league deigned to permit others to fight and die to save fellow Arabs for whom 19 of 21 Arab states have yet to lift a finger.

And what about that brilliant U.N. resolution?

*Russia’s Vladimir Putin is already calling the Libya operation a medieval crusade.

*China is calling for a cease-fire in place — which would completely undermine the allied effort by leaving Gaddafi in power, his people at his mercy and the country partitioned and condemned to ongoing civil war.

*Brazil joined China in that call for a cease-fire. This just hours after Obama ended his fawning two-day Brazil visit. Another triumph of presidential personal diplomacy.

And how about NATO? Let’s see. As of this writing, Britain wanted the operation to be led by NATO. France adamantly disagreed, citing Arab sensibilities. Germany wanted no part of anything, going so far as to pull four of its ships from NATO command in the Mediterranean. Italy hinted it might deny the allies the use of its air bases if NATO can’t get its act together. France and Germany walked out of a NATO meeting on Monday, while Norway had planes in Crete ready to go but refused to let them fly until it had some idea who the hell is running the operation. And Turkey, whose prime minister four months ago proudly accepted the Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights, has been particularly resistant to the Libya operation from the beginning.

And as for the United States, who knows what American policy is. Administration officials insist we are not trying to bring down Gaddafi, even as the president insists that he must go. Although on Tuesday Obama did add “unless he changes his approach.” Approach, mind you.

In any case, for Obama, military objectives take a back seat to diplomatic appearances. The president is obsessed with pretending that we are not running the operation — a dismaying expression of Obama’s view that his country is so tainted by its various sins that it lacks the moral legitimacy to . . . what? Save Third World people from massacre?

Obama seems equally obsessed with handing off the lead role. Hand off to whom? NATO? Quarreling amid Turkish resistance (see above), NATO still can’t agree on taking over command of the airstrike campaign, which is what has kept the Libyan rebels alive.

This confusion is purely the result of Obama’s decision to get America into the war and then immediately relinquish American command. Never modest about himself, Obama is supremely modest about his country. America should be merely “one of the partners among many,” he said Monday. No primus inter pares for him. Even the Clinton administration spoke of America as the indispensable nation. And it remains so. Yet at a time when the world is hungry for America to lead — no one has anything near our capabilities, experience and resources — America is led by a man determined that it should not.

A man who dithers over parchment. Who starts a war from which he wants out right away. Good God. If you go to take Vienna, take Vienna. If you’re not prepared to do so, better then to stay home and do nothing.

The idiocy continues

To post an update to the story I posted on here regarding the proposed burning of the Qu'ran by a church in the U.S., here is the latest BBC story on it. For those who missed my original post on this story, you can find it here.


Not surprisingly, Gen. Petraeus believes that should this happen, the lives of U.S. troops in Afghanistan would be in greater danger than they are now. No shit, you think Muslims wouldn't be pissed the eff off by a mass burning of their holy book? sigh.

Petraeus: Koran burning plan will endanger US troops

Protesters burned an effigy of Pastor Terry Jones

The top US commander in Afghanistan has warned that troops' lives will be in danger if an American church sticks to its plan to burn copies of the Koran.

Gen David Petraeus said the action could cause problems "not just in Kabul, but everywhere in the world".
Pastor Terry Jones, of the Dove World Outreach Center, plans to put copies of the holy book in a bonfire to mark this week's anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
There have already been protests in Afghanistan and Indonesia.

The US embassy in Kabul issued a statement condemning the plans by the non-denominational church in Gainesville, Florida.

"It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort," Gen Petraeus said in a statement to US media. "It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems.

"Not just here, but everywhere in the world, we are engaged with the Islamic community," added Gen Petraeus, who heads a 150,000-strong Nato force against a Taliban-led insurgency.

Lt Gen William Caldwell, the commander of the Nato training mission in Afghanistan, told CNN: "It's their holy book, so when somebody says that they're going to destroy that and cause a desecration to something that's very sacred to them, it's already stirred up a lot of discussion and concern amongst the people."

In Kabul on Monday, about 500 protesters chanted "long live Islam" and "death to America" as they set fire to an effigy of Mr Jones.

The controversy comes at a time of already heated debate in the US over a proposal to build a mosque and Islamic cultural centre two streets from Ground Zero, site of the 9/11 attacks, in New York.

In a statement to the Wall Street Journal, Mr Jones acknowledged Gen Petraeus's concerns, but added: "We must send a clear message to the radical element of Islam. We will no longer be controlled and dominated by their fears and threats."

The planned protest by Mr Jones's previously little-known 50-member Florida church, whose website labels Islam "violent and oppressive", has prompted protests elsewhere, too.

Thousands of mostly Muslim demonstrators rallied around Indonesia last weekend.
Claims that US soldiers have desecrated the Koran in both Afghanistan and Iraq have caused bloodshed in the past.

There were deadly protests in Afghanistan in 2008, when it emerged that a US soldier deployed to Iraq riddled a copy of the holy book with bullets.

And further lives were lost in Afghan riots in 2005 when Newsweek magazine printed a story alleging that US interrogators at Guantanamo Bay had flushed a copy of the Koran down a toilet.

Finally, the honeymoon period is coming to a close

I am so happy to read that more and more people are finally coming out of their honeymoon period with the Obama presidency. Sure, he sounds great...but when push comes to shove, what has he really done since being in office? And don't even get me started on the Nobel Peace Prize. Since when is it enough to win a PEACE PRIZE by giving a speech?

Anyhow, interesting article that I recommend anyone who is interested in U.S. politics should read.

Taken from the BBC

Not much good news on President Barack Obama's birthday

By Katie Connolly BBC News, Washington

 
The inaugural ball was a happier time for Mr Obama, whose wife's approval rating now eclipses his own.

 

Barack Obama celebrates his 49th birthday on Wednesday. Grassroots organisers around the country are holding birthday events to help rally supporters, but will they help the president's flagging approval ratings?

In Washington DC, 18 months can seem like a lifetime. For President Obama, that frosty January morning when he took the oath of office before a veritable sea of well-wishers must seem like a distant memory.
Back then, over two-thirds of Americans rated him favourably. It seemed difficult to imagine that after 500 days in office, political pundits would be warning that this popular young president could be an albatross for vulnerable Democrats in November's mid-term elections.

And yet last week, Pennsylvania Senate candidate Joe Sestak, who is in a tough race against Republican Pat Toomey, told reporters he'd prefer that Michelle Obama campaign for him than her husband. She's now the most popular political figure in the country, according to a recent Gallup poll.

That scenario seemed unthinkable to the masses who lined Pennsylvania Avenue, huddling against the cold, to cheer the new president last January.

But in recent weeks, polling undertaken by the Gallup Organization has suggested disapproval of Mr Obama's presidency is outpacing approval on several occasions.

His approval rating, which has hovered around 47% for more than a month, hasn't broken 50% since mid-May.

 
Both Hillary and Bill Clinton are now more popular than Mr Obama.
 

His former rival Hillary Clinton has fared significantly better, achieving a 61% approval rating in 2010 - a figure matched by her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

Just 36% of Americans approve of Mr Obama's handling of the war in Afghanistan, down from 56% in July 2009, the poll suggests.

In mid July, a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll found support for Mr Obama's economic policies at a new low of 42%.

On another significant issue, the BP oil spill, a June poll conducted by CNN found 59% of survey respondents disapproved of Mr Obama's handling of the matter.

Slow change

As the chorus of critics grows, Mr Obama finds himself on the defensive. In two recent television interviews, the president was at pains to remind viewers that many of the problems he faced were handed to him when he took office.

But that's an argument the public seems increasingly immune to.

"Change has not come fast enough for too many Americans, I know that," Mr Obama admitted via video to the online activists and bloggers gathered at the liberal Netroots Nation convention.

Presidential Approval Ratings

Continue reading the main story Figures for early August in the second year in office:

• Barack Obama: 45%
• George W Bush: 71%
• Bill Clinton: 43%
• George H W Bush: 74%
• Ronald Reagan: 41%
• Jimmy Carter: 39%
• Gerald Ford: 48%
• Richard Nixon: 55%

Source: Gallup

That group were committed early supporters of Mr Obama, but have grown increasingly disgruntled with his presidency.

There seems nary a bright spot for Mr Obama.

But Jeff Jones, managing editor of the Gallup Poll, doesn't think this seemingly precipitous decline in support is particularly unusual.

"I think it is pretty normal, if you look at where other presidents stood at this point in their presidency," Mr Jones told the BBC.

Mr Obama's predecessor, President George W Bush, had impressively high ratings at this point in his presidency, driven largely by a spike in presidential support after the 9/11 attacks.

But Presidents Clinton, Reagan and Carter were all in the 40% range at a similar point in their presidencies. Indeed Mr Obama outperformed all three in July.

"The common thread with those presidents is that they all took office when the economy wasn't doing so well," Mr Jones said. "One difference is that Obama came into office more popular than most elected presidents, so maybe the expectations were a little bit higher."

But when the economy isn't doing well, it is nearly always the most pressing issue on voters' minds, and Mr Jones notes that it is very difficult for a president to have robust approval ratings with a weak economy.
"The economy is generally one of the stronger predictors of how people evaluate the president," he says, which doesn't bode well for Mr Obama's immediate political fortunes.

Still, the president's supporters are trying to capitalise on his 49th birthday today to reignite the energy and enthusiasm that characterised his campaign.

Campaign zeitgeist After the election, the president's impressive campaign apparatus transformed into Organizing for America (OFA), a fundraising and activist organisation with access to the coveted e-mail and call lists compiled during Mr Obama's presidential campaign.

 
 The enthusiasm of the Obama campaign has dissipated during his presidency.
 

OFA is eager to reactivate the millions of Americans who raised money, made phone calls and canvassed their neighbourhoods for Mr Obama.

OFA is attempting to use the president's birthday to provide both a boost for the commander-in-chief and encourage willing volunteers for Democrats in the mid-terms.

"The events that focus on anniversaries or that focus on the president as a personality or someone that people like and identify with tend to do well, so its understandable that they continue to try to tap that enthusiasm," Ari Melber, a writer for The Nation who has studied OFA, told the BBC.

"However, everyone knows there is significant concern from Obama's base about his progress on changing Washington."

OFA supporters received an e-mail from Michelle Obama, asking them to sign a birthday card for her husband, and "let him know that we're ready to take on the year ahead alongside him".

The Washington Post reports that, in what looks like a spot of campaign nostalgia, OFA is urging supporters to bust out their campaign '08 "yes we can" T-shirts, hats and buttons and wear them on Wednesday.
But while recapturing that campaign zeitgeist seems desirable, Mr Melber warns there are risks, particularly for some of the most active campaign supporters who have become some of the most disillusioned.

"There is always a risk that if you only do these kumbaya events and you don't give people meaningful voice then they may tune out," Mr Melber says.

"Most of these people would still like to see Mr Obama re-elected, so we are not talking about a real crisis in his political support. But walking around with a button or wishing the president a happy birthday doesn't really achieve anything either."

For Mr Obama, whose wife and daughters will be out of town for his birthday, it may not be such a happy birthday. Lucky for him, he still has Bo, the family dog.